Refusing Digital Monitoring Policies

Microsoft is doing some of the most creative thinking along these lines,
with something it's calling "Digital Manners Policies." According to its
patent application, DMP-enabled devices would accept broadcast "orders"
limiting capabilities. Cellphones could be remotely set to vibrate mode in
restaurants and concert halls, and be turned off on airplanes and in
hospitals. Cameras could be prohibited from taking pictures in locker rooms
and museums, and recording equipment could be disabled in theaters.
Professors finally could prevent students from texting one another during
class.

It sounds innocent enough, until Schneier pulls back the curtain to show the
real motivation behind these policies:

Don't be fooled by the scare stories of wireless devices on airplanes and
in hospitals, or visions of a world where no one is yammering loudly on
their cellphones in posh restaurants. This is really about media companies
wanting to exert their control further over your electronics. They not only
want to prevent you from surreptitiously recording movies and concerts,
they want your new television to enforce good "manners" on your computer,
and not allow it to record any programs. They want your iPod to politely
refuse to copy music a computer other than your own. They want to enforce
their legislated definition of manners: to control what you do and when you
do it, and to charge you repeatedly for the privilege whenever possible.

Consumers are objecting en masse to the idea of their own computers and
devices continuously and indiscriminately policing their activities via Digital
Restrictions Management. So it's no surprise that Microsoft is hatching plans
to soft-pedal these same restrictions under the term "manners." This is just
old wine in new bottles -- Microsoft wants another way to control your
activities.

Since they would be the patent holder, they can profit from selling this
ability to monitor and control you to others. There's no doubt that their main
customers would be the same media distribution companies who are struggling to
cripple the technology that makes them irrelevant -- technology that enables
many more artists and creators to share their works directly with the public.

Microsoft's patent abstract says:

Similar to some of the social manners honored among people, such as with
"no smoking" or "employees only" zones, "no swimming" or "no flash
photography" areas, and scenarios for "please wash your hands" or "no
talking out loud", devices may recognize and comply with analogous "device
manners" policy.

It's common for companies pedaling digital restrictions to try to find
parallels in the analog world, to make the restrictions seem familiar and
correct. But these are flawed comparisons -- no machine covers your mouth with
duct tape when you enter a "no smoking" zone just to make sure that you don't
smoke. Nobody breaks your fingers to make sure that you don't use the flash on
your camera in a museum.

Digital restrictions require you to hand over your privacy and freedom in
advance. They are inherently unsafe because people other than the intended
parties can access these mechanisms for monitoring and restricting you. They
are inherently untrustworthy because you aren't legally allowed to know what's
going on behind the scenes on the device in your pocket, including the contents
of its continuous conversation with whichever corporation it's reporting to.
The purpose of the restrictions might sound benign but their mechanism is
unacceptable -- and what these companies are actually after is acceptance of
the mechanism, so that they can then put it to other uses.

Digital Restrictions Management and "Digital Manners Policies" both use the fear
that some people might not do the right thing to justify treating everyone like
a criminal and taking away our freedom. We shouldn't accept this justification
to cripple what are otherwise incredibly useful and powerful tools for
innovation and creativity. "Digital Manners Policies" are really "Digital
Monitoring Policies," and we should refuse them.